Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)

From: John Cowan (
Date: Fri Jun 27 2003 - 09:24:35 EDT

  • Next message: John Cowan: "Re: [cowan: Re: Biblical Hebrew (Was: Major Defect in Combining Classes of Tibetan Vowels)]"

    Michael Everson scripsit:

    > So, you're saying, no one has asked IETF whether or not they would be
    > able to countenance a dozen or so changes for unimplemented things
    > like biblical accents.

    The IETF has an explicit contract with Unicode: "We'
    ll use your normalization algorithm if you promise NEVER, NEVER to change
    the normalization status of a single character." Unicode has already
    broken that promise four times, so its credibility is shaky. 14 new
    changes is indeed a radical change from this point of view, and would
    IMO break the promise beyond repair.

    > I don't think anyone is proposing a *radical* change.

    Unfortunately, you don't understand what is "radical" here. Unicode
    could have done all sorts of things -- normalized simplified characters
    into traditional ones, even -- and W3C would probably have swallowed it.
    What it can't swallow is a lack of stability in Unicode's commitments.
    I'm on the XML Core WG and the I18N Interest Group, so I'm not talking
    out of my ass here.

    > Well, y'all are gonna have to do something, and adding duplicate
    > characters to ISO/IEC 10646 is not going to be well-received, because
    > there isn't anything broken in ISO/IEC 10646.

    So far I have not heard any compelling objections to CGJ except that
    invisible characters are fuggly.

    > You could explain the problem with these Hebrew accents, and ask them
    > to help by accepting a change. Shivering in a cave for fear of the
    > monsters outside isn't going to get anyone anywhere. People of good
    > will can often come to enlightened consensus.

    Not when their core values -- correctness vs. stability -- are made to
    be at odds.

    > >Change the character classes in Unicode 4.1, and they *might* decide to
    > >freeze support at, say, Unicode 3.0.
    > Or they might understand the problem. People aren't all *that*
    > stupid, methinks.

    They -- that is, I -- do understand. To understand all is *not* to forgive all.

    Yes, chili in the eye is bad, but so is your    John Cowan
    ear.  However, I would suggest you wash your
    hands thoroughly before going to the toilet.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 27 2003 - 10:01:15 EDT